Get full details for an endpoint you own, including credit balance, pricing config, and wallet address. PATs are preferred and require mcp:read or mcp:*.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The unique slug identifier for the endpoint | |
| apiKey | No | Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*) | |
| accessToken | No | Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / accessTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*)",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your endpoint API key (x402_*)"New value: +"Legacy endpoint API key (x402_*)"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "slug",
- "apiKey"
-]New value: +[
+ "slug"
+]Input schema / properties / apiKey / descriptionPrevious value: -"Your endpoint API key (sk_live_* or sk_test_*)"New value: +"Your endpoint API key (x402_*)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the returned data categories (credit balance, pricing config, wallet address) and auth requirements, which is valuable. It does not mention potential errors, rate limits, or precedence when both apiKey and accessToken are supplied, but for a read operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important details. It avoids fluff and redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately summarizes expected return fields and auth requirements. It lacks clarity on auth precedence between PAT and API key, and does not mention whether apiKey is deprecated or legacy. Still, for a read tool with simple parameters, it is mostly sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (slug, apiKey, accessToken) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal additional parameter-level meaning, only implying which auth method is preferred. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific owned endpoint, listing the included fields (credit balance, pricing config, wallet address). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint_stats or list_my_endpoints, which focus on statistics or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It identifies that this is for endpoints you own, implying it should be used for owned resources rather than marketplace browsing. It also provides auth guidance (PATs preferred, requiring mcp:read or mcp:*), which helps the agent understand credential requirements. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.